The Canadian government already grows and sells medicinal marijuana, but you need a prescription from a doctor for an ailment that belongs to a list governed by Health Canada.

Selling marijuana over the counter is a natural progression to that, which I would support as long as the individual has no criminal record, and isn't a minor (under the age of 18).

Making marijuana widely available would do a tremendous amount of harm to those in the illegal drug trade. And lets be honest, we have far worse substances that are readily available on the market, so having restrictions on such a minor drug is a waste of resources.

It is interesting that here in the states there are those that are so hell bent on reckless spending and blank checks written to a war on a plant... and the increased criminalization of it really just is a further siphoning of government money and resources into the pockets of individuals...

I say this mainly because it isnt a war that they are winning and like you brought up actually then pad the pockets of criminals because it keeps the price on the black market up... so what we see is a reverse laundering of money from legal to illegal money...

It is funny that for certain groups of people that champion the idea of spending less then turn around and insist that we spend more on criminalization of marijuana because it is a moral issue

I think this is an area where our friends up north are decades ahead and the USA just has too many people that are unable to see the financial and social picture beyond the paranoia/fear of "reefer madness" type of ideology that justifies the draining/depletion of government resources and dollars...

I think that over the counter as a natural progression makes sense, which I think is why people in america fear medicinal marijuana because of the natural progression towards the decriminalization which would put a hole in the money flow... not to mention the drug companies

I agree with you on some level about minors, I might look to make it 21years old like alcohol in the states... I mean the age limit doesnt necessarily deter underage drinking, but at least we are not handing minors alcohol like candy...

I am interested in your idea of criminal record and what type of criminal record... a part of me understands where you might be coming from, but if it were legal, it would reduce the criminal element of the substance and thus the connection...

Research on the effects of marijuana has shown that it does impair ones ability when decision making. I'd like their to be some law, whereby in legalizing marijuana, we are not making it readily available to the criminal element in our society, or if we do, they are held to a higher standard.

Anyone who has a criminal record (that is non marijuana related) within the last 7 years, and has not received a pardon, in my eyes, needs to remain sober for the benefit of society. Criminals should not be given the luxury of being able to smoke a joint or getting drunk, due to past transgressions. I'd like to extend that to alcohol consumption in some way. The problem is we have no way of knowing at the point of sale whether someone has a criminal record.

We could impose a system, such as Uruguay is attempting to do, in having users register with the government. Or we could stiffen sentences and pass a law that makes it illegal for someone with a criminal record to get high or drunk. They ought to remain sober for societies sake, it sounds intrusive, but I'd like it to be used as an incentive to remain law abiding.

Of course it could be tweaked to include only violent criminal acts, or specific acts, but personally I'd like it to be all encompassing.

The idea that we should ask permission, and adhere to stupid regulations concerning the sale of marijuanna is ludicrous. De-criminalize for personal posession and call it a day.

Why do we need to concern ourselves as a society if a minor or a convict gets it?

Would it really be so Earth shattering that we need such regulation. Would it be another 9-11 if a 16 year old kid smokes a joint? Or some guy who gets out of the Pen after being incarcerated takes some bong rips?

What about the 40% of prisoners that are currently in jail because of the plant?

The problem is we have no way of knowing at the point of sale whether someone has a criminal record.

Maybe they should wear a big Red C on their clothing, or an arm band, so we can discriminate against them.

We already do... those with a criminal record have an incredibly difficult time finding meaningful employment. I'm not suggesting absolute restrictions, nor something even close to what employers do by performing background checks. I'm saying that if you've proven that you have a difficult time making law abiding decisions, we as a society should not provide you with substances that only makes the decision process more difficult. Under your scenario of zero restrictions, we would only be setting criminals up for repeated failure.

I'm merely suggesting that smoking dope should be a privilege, much like owning a gun license (which we have restrictions for the mentally disabled and criminal element), or just like owning a drivers license (which we also have restrictions on the mentally disabled and criminals).

The idea that we should ask permission, and adhere to stupid regulations concerning the sale of marijuanna is ludicrous. De-criminalize for personal posession and call it a day.

Why do we need to concern ourselves as a society if a minor or a convict gets it?

Would it really be so Earth shattering that we need such regulation. Would it be another 9-11 if a 16 year old kid smokes a joint? Or some guy who gets out of the Pen after being incarcerated takes some bong rips?

What about the 40% of prisoners that are currently in jail because of the plant?

Legalization should not = Regulation.

The same reason we concern ourselves with minors owning guns, or drinking alcohol. Or the same reason convicted pedophiles are ordered to stay away from schools and children. It's the responsible thing to do.

I'm saying if you want to smoke a joint, no problem, just be socially responsible in life.

Rick, where do you think you got all your so called rights you were born with? You got them from the people living in society before you were born.

Some of you think that when you are born into a society which other people live in, you are free to do whatever you think is okay to do. Buy your own island somewhere and then you can run your society how you see fit, until then we have to live by the rules that society makes.

Thats why i always say you can run todays society the same way it was run in 1776, things are entirley differnt. Society needs to change to the current times and what people want. If people want pot to be legal in our society, then at some point it will be.

Also stop making it sound like pot doesnt darn people up, because people on pot lose their motor skills just as much as people on booze. So the same laws that apply to people drunk on booze, should apply to people on pot. I always love the pot is just a plant, what do you think alcohol is?

I hate to wax religious, but I derive my rights from my creator. I was born with inalienable rights. So were you. I prefer to just say that I was born with rights, because some people do not believe in God. Suffice it to say everyone was born with rights.

If I was born during slavery, it would still be wrong according to those rights, and it is because of those rights that it ended.

I know that I have to live with the perversions of my liberties because that is the law of the day, I was merely trying to contrast the rights that I was born with, and the rights that Canadians are allowed by their masters.

Two completely different forms of governments and outlooks on where our rights come from.

Our government is definitely heading down the technocratic/ administrative path of administering "privliges" to citizens.

'The idea is to weaken crime by removing profits from drug dealers and diverting users from harder drugs.'

The US Government and their Pharmaceutical Corporate Crook Friends will never allow this to happen. There must be weapons of mass destruction, or terrorists, or SOME reason we can invade Uruguay. I'm sure the UN is working on it.

The difference is that my government was set up with a set of rules to restrain govt. so as not to infringe on my rights. Your rights were given to you by your rulers. Just as you illustrated.

Oh my. That is terribly wrong and inaccurate, and I did not say nor imply that my rights were given to me by any ruler (which I'm assuming you mean the Queen of England and British monarchy).

First and foremost, we are both (the US & Canada) governed by the EXACT same legal system, that being a system of common law which originated in Britain.

I have never known a ruler, as the Canada Act of 1982 was passed before my birth. In that act Canada patriated our constitution from British rule. Patriation means that ONLY Canada is allowed to amend the Canadian Constitution (yes their is such a thing).

Much the same way that Americans enjoy the protection of the American Constitution, Canadians enjoy the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in our very own Canadian Constitution.

Do you have the slightest idea what the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does? It restrains my government so that they can not infringe on my rights... sounds a tad bit familiar doesn't it?

I suggest you look up the term constitutional monarch, then you'd understand the "Queens role in Canada".

Coles notes version, taken from wiki.

Most constitutional monarchies employ a parliamentary system in which the monarch may have strictly ceremonial duties or may have reserve powers, depending on the constitution. Under most modern constitutional monarchies there is also a prime minister who is the head of government and exercises effective political power.

The Queen has zero reserve powers, and has been given strictly ceremonial duties here in Canada.

Activities offered by advertising links to other sites may be deemed an illegal activity in certain jurisdictions. Viewers are specifically warned that they should inquire into the legality of participating in any games and/or activities offered by such other sites. The owner of this website assumes no responsibility for the actions by and makes no representation or endorsement of any of these games and/or activities offered by the advertiser. As a condition of viewing this website viewers agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from the viewer’s participation in any of the games and/or activities offered by the advertiser.